Comments are welcome, Heron

SIGGI ~ I like it. Very Nice ~
~THOM~

http://home.earthlink.net/~thom_b_foto
 >> Stay informed about: Comments are welcome, Heron 

Siegfried Baesler <naturundfoto DeleteThis @freenet.de> wrote in message news:<3F44BEEA.C17C68E DeleteThis @freenet.de>...
 > Dear friends,
 >
 > as usual, all comments are welcome for my heron.
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://people.freenet.de/naturfoto/Kritik_drf.htm</font" target="_blank">http://people.freenet.de/naturfoto/Kritik_drf.htm</font</a>>
 >
 > Thanks in advance.
 >
 > Siggi

I like it. I'd also like to see a front view.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Comments are welcome, Heron 

ralford wrote:
 >
 > it would be useful to provide more information: lens, parameters, location,
 > etc.
 >
 > rma
 >

Dear Ralford,

I shoot this photo on Merritt Island, on the wildlife drive last spring.
The conditions were:

Nikon D100
Nikkor MF 300mm F4.5
1/2500s
in the afternoon.

Regards

Siggi

--
Homepage <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://people.freenet.de/naturfoto/" target="_blank">http://people.freenet.de/naturfoto/</a>
Fische <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aquanet.de/Privat/naturaquarium/" target="_blank">http://www.aquanet.de/Privat/naturaquarium/</a>
A.Einstein:The problems that exists in the world today
cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Comments are welcome, Heron 

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:48:55 GMT, "ralford" <ralford DeleteThis @bigfoot.com>
wrote:

 >it would be useful to provide more information: lens, parameters, location,
 >etc.
 >
 >r

Why?

Photography is an art. The only thing that matters is the end
result. I personally don't care whether the photo was taken with a
pinhole camera, a 127 film cereal box camera from the 60's or a Nikon
F5 or a 8x10 camera. Its the end result that matters not the
equipment.

Jim<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Comments are welcome, Heron 

Jim Nason wrote:
 >
 > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:48:55 GMT, "ralford" <ralford DeleteThis @bigfoot.com>
 > wrote:
 >
  > >it would be useful to provide more information: lens, parameters, location,
  > >etc.
  > >
  > >r
 >
 > Why?
 >
 > Photography is an art. The only thing that matters is the end
 > result. I personally don't care whether the photo was taken with a
 > pinhole camera, a 127 film cereal box camera from the 60's or a Nikon
 > F5 or a 8x10 camera. Its the end result that matters not the
 > equipment.
 >
 > Jim

That is partly true.
I do not know, what was the reason for his question, but sometimes I
would know where, or how somebody has taken a photo.

But now I have a question about my result. What do you think about my
photo?

Thanks

Siggi
--
Homepage <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://people.freenet.de/naturfoto/" target="_blank">http://people.freenet.de/naturfoto/</a>
Fische <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aquanet.de/Privat/naturaquarium/" target="_blank">http://www.aquanet.de/Privat/naturaquarium/</a>
A.Einstein:The problems that exists in the world today
cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Comments are welcome, Heron 

what a myopic view. art is also the result of technique. are you a
participant or just an observer - that's rhetorical - your already
ploinked...

rma

"Jim Nason" <jimn.DeleteThis@nospam.none.com> wrote in message
news:3f4ac9b0.34155723@Netnews.Comcast.net...
 > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:48:55 GMT, "ralford" <ralford.DeleteThis@bigfoot.com>
 > wrote:
 >
  > >it would be useful to provide more information: lens, parameters,
location,
  > >etc.
  > >
  > >r
 >
 > Why?
 >
 > Photography is an art. The only thing that matters is the end
 > result. I personally don't care whether the photo was taken with a
 > pinhole camera, a 127 film cereal box camera from the 60's or a Nikon
 > F5 or a 8x10 camera. Its the end result that matters not the
 > equipment.
 >
 > Jim<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Comments are welcome, Heron 

In article <nlJ2b.41831$0u4.852@news1.central.cox.net>,
"ralford" <ralford RemoveThis @bigfoot.com> wrote:

 > what a myopic view. art is also the result of technique. are you a
 > participant or just an observer - that's rhetorical - your already
 > ploinked...

Well, I would agree with Jim on this one. Yes technique is how you make
art or great images but to judge a photo on what type of camera he is
using is kind of irrelevant.

For example if he shot this with a Kodak Disposable, would you rank it
higher or lower, than if he shot it with a Nikon D1X.?

Technique is what an artist uses to produce a finished piece, but a
piece stands or fails on it own merits.

Now for a another photographer, to know the technique of a photograph
can be very helpful in some circumstances. It can be another form of
learning of what to do and what not to do. Using the information for a
base starting point and then by trying different techniques to make the
photograph better or worse.

Now about the Heron (Great Blue Heron) image... A bird flying away is
almost never as good as a bird flying toward or parallel to the camera.
The head, the eyes are very important, unless the bird is not the main
subject like it is being used as a silhouette or something like that.

PWW
http:www.PhotoStockFile.com<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Comments are welcome, Heron 

just for reference, the original note was: "as usual, all comments are
welcome for my heron." I am confident my comment met that criteria. I hope
the pedantic bs is helping your feeling of worth...

you guys have a lot of time on your hands.

rma

"PWW" <pww RemoveThis @-remove-photostockfile.com> wrote in message
news:pww-1D4B4C.10143826082003@news.verizon.net...
 > In article <nlJ2b.41831$0u4.852@news1.central.cox.net>,
 > "ralford" <ralford RemoveThis @bigfoot.com> wrote:
 >
  > > what a myopic view. art is also the result of technique. are you a
  > > participant or just an observer - that's rhetorical - your already
  > > ploinked...
 >
 > Well, I would agree with Jim on this one. Yes technique is how you make
 > art or great images but to judge a photo on what type of camera he is
 > using is kind of irrelevant.
 >
 > For example if he shot this with a Kodak Disposable, would you rank it
 > higher or lower, than if he shot it with a Nikon D1X.?
 >
 > Technique is what an artist uses to produce a finished piece, but a
 > piece stands or fails on it own merits.
 >
 > Now for a another photographer, to know the technique of a photograph
 > can be very helpful in some circumstances. It can be another form of
 > learning of what to do and what not to do. Using the information for a
 > base starting point and then by trying different techniques to make the
 > photograph better or worse.
 >
 > Now about the Heron (Great Blue Heron) image... A bird flying away is
 > almost never as good as a bird flying toward or parallel to the camera.
 > The head, the eyes are very important, unless the bird is not the main
 > subject like it is being used as a silhouette or something like that.
 >
 > PWW
 > http:www.PhotoStockFile.com<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Comments are welcome, Heron 

in article pww-1D4B4C.10143826082003 RemoveThis @news.verizon.net, PWW at
pww RemoveThis @-remove-photostockfile.com wrote on 26/8/03 3:14 pm:

 > Now about the Heron (Great Blue Heron) image... A bird flying away is
 > almost never as good as a bird flying toward or parallel to the camera.
 > The head, the eyes are very important, unless the bird is not the main
 > subject like it is being used as a silhouette or something like that.

I think that the shot is much more interesting than it would have been if
the heron was in the same position in flight and coming towards or across
the frame. I was at a lecture by a pro wildlife photographer (who won one of
the BBC Wildlife Photographer categories in 2000 or so), and he said that a
photo of the backsides of a group of elephants was by far his best selling
image.

There are many times when an image becomes appealing because it doesn't
feature the animal's eyes, which are confrontational to the viewer. It
depends what you want to convey with the image I suppose. This heron shot
shows the bird as an independent animal, unaware of the photographer. It
makes the shot more peaceful because of this. This is all subjective, of
course.

For use on a cover of a magazine, it may not have the impact required, but
for an advert it would be very good, because although it is impressive, it
doesn't draw too much attention, so other things (text, etc.) would be more
the focus for the viewer. But that has nothing to do with the merits of the
photo as art.

Ben<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Comments are welcome, Heron 

Ben Micklem <benmicklem.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<BB723A8E.2D0E%benmicklem@hotmail.com>...
 > in article pww-1D4B4C.10143826082003.RemoveThis@news.verizon.net, PWW at
 > pww.RemoveThis@-remove-photostockfile.com wrote on 26/8/03 3:14 pm:
 >
  > > Now about the Heron (Great Blue Heron) image... A bird flying away is
  > > almost never as good as a bird flying toward or parallel to the camera.
  > > The head, the eyes are very important, unless the bird is not the main
  > > subject like it is being used as a silhouette or something like that.
 >
 > I think that the shot is much more interesting than it would have been if
 > the heron was in the same position in flight and coming towards or across
 > the frame. I was at a lecture by a pro wildlife photographer (who won one of
 > the BBC Wildlife Photographer categories in 2000 or so), and he said that a
 > photo of the backsides of a group of elephants was by far his best selling
 > image.

That surprises me, but elephants are not birds.

 > There are many times when an image becomes appealing because it doesn't
 > feature the animal's eyes, which are confrontational to the viewer.

I LIKE the eyes to be visible.

See these:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://zd.csimultimedia.com/photo09.htm" target="_blank">http://zd.csimultimedia.com/photo09.htm</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://zd.csimultimedia.com/photo10.htm" target="_blank">http://zd.csimultimedia.com/photo10.htm</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://zd.csimultimedia.com/photo11.htm" target="_blank">http://zd.csimultimedia.com/photo11.htm</a>


 >It
 > depends what you want to convey with the image I suppose. This heron shot
 > shows the bird as an independent animal, unaware of the photographer. It
 > makes the shot more peaceful because of this. This is all subjective, of
 > course.
 >
 > For use on a cover of a magazine, it may not have the impact required, but
 > for an advert it would be very good, because although it is impressive, it
 > doesn't draw too much attention, so other things (text, etc.) would be more
 > the focus for the viewer. But that has nothing to do with the merits of the
 > photo as art.
 >
 > Ben<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Comments are welcome, Heron 

In article <BB723A8E.2D0E%benmicklem@hotmail.com>,
Ben Micklem <benmicklem.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:

 > I think that the shot is much more interesting than it would have been if
 > the heron was in the same position in flight and coming towards or across
 > the frame. I was at a lecture by a pro wildlife photographer (who won one of
 > the BBC Wildlife Photographer categories in 2000 or so), and he said that a
 > photo of the backsides of a group of elephants was by far his best selling
 > image.

I have to disagree. The Elephants photo might have some other things
going for it, I would have to see it, to judge it. Do you have a link to
the image? It could be the rear-ends of Elephants could have some humor
or other emotional effect attached to it.

In article <BB723A8E.2D0E%benmicklem@hotmail.com>,
Ben Micklem <benmicklem.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:

 > There are many times when an image becomes appealing because it doesn't
 > feature the animal's eyes, which are confrontational to the viewer. It
 > depends what you want to convey with the image I suppose. This heron shot
 > shows the bird as an independent animal, unaware of the photographer. It
 > makes the shot more peaceful because of this. This is all subjective, of
 > course.

But since the GBH (Great Blue Heron) is flying away from the
photographer, doesn't it does look like the GBH was aware, and even
scared into this flight from the approaching photographer.

In article <BB723A8E.2D0E%benmicklem@hotmail.com>,
Ben Micklem <benmicklem.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
 > For use on a cover of a magazine, it may not have the impact required, but
 > for an advert it would be very good, because although it is impressive, it
 > doesn't draw too much attention, so other things (text, etc.) would be more
 > the focus for the viewer. But that has nothing to do with the merits of the
 > photo as art.

Once again, I have to disagree. I do not think even as an advertisement
it could stand on it own. I guess, I just see what is so "impressive"
with the photo. Sure, the GBH has it's wing full out and the wings are
sharp but isn't that about it. No offense meant.

PWW
http:www.PhotoStockFile.com<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Comments are welcome, Heron 

Wow! I guess if you can't elaborate on or defend your "comments" except
for some vitriolic tirade, then we can see who is feeling a bit inutile.
Why would you get so nasty so quickly! Is it just because someone had
the audacity to question your highbrow comments?

PWW
http:www.PhotoStockFile.com

In article <HDU2b.43244$0u4.26203@news1.central.cox.net>,
"ralford" <ralford.RemoveThis@bigfoot.com> wrote:

 > just for reference, the original note was: "as usual, all comments are
 > welcome for my heron." I am confident my comment met that criteria. I hope
 > the pedantic bs is helping your feeling of worth...
 >
 > you guys have a lot of time on your hands.
 >
 > rma
 >
 > "PWW" <pww.RemoveThis@-remove-photostockfile.com> wrote in message
 > news:pww-1D4B4C.10143826082003@news.verizon.net...
  > > In article <nlJ2b.41831$0u4.852@news1.central.cox.net>,
  > > "ralford" <ralford.RemoveThis@bigfoot.com> wrote:
  > >
   > > > what a myopic view. art is also the result of technique. are you a
   > > > participant or just an observer - that's rhetorical - your already
   > > > ploinked...
  > >
  > > Well, I would agree with Jim on this one. Yes technique is how you make
  > > art or great images but to judge a photo on what type of camera he is
  > > using is kind of irrelevant.
  > >
  > > For example if he shot this with a Kodak Disposable, would you rank it
  > > higher or lower, than if he shot it with a Nikon D1X.?
  > >
  > > Technique is what an artist uses to produce a finished piece, but a
  > > piece stands or fails on it own merits.
  > >
  > > Now for a another photographer, to know the technique of a photograph
  > > can be very helpful in some circumstances. It can be another form of
  > > learning of what to do and what not to do. Using the information for a
  > > base starting point and then by trying different techniques to make the
  > > photograph better or worse.
  > >
  > > Now about the Heron (Great Blue Heron) image... A bird flying away is
  > > almost never as good as a bird flying toward or parallel to the camera.
  > > The head, the eyes are very important, unless the bird is not the main
  > > subject like it is being used as a silhouette or something like that.
  > >
  > > PWW
  > > http:www.PhotoStockFile.com
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Comments are welcome, Heron